ASHRAF KOKKUR versus K.V. ABDUL KHADER ETC.

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 1123 · Decided: 29-08-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 7 S.C.R. 1123 
• 
ASHRAF KOKKUR 
A 
v. 
K.V. ABDUL KHADER ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 69-70 of 2012) 
AUGUST 29, 2014 
B 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
0.7, r. 11 (a) - Cause of action - Election petition -
c 
Challenging the election· of returned candidate to State 
Legislative Assembly -. On the ground of disqualification as 
he was holding office of profit, i.e. Chairperson of Kera/a State 
Wakf Board - Petition dismissed by High Court holding that 
it did not disclose a complete cause of action or a triable issue 
- Held: The inquiry under 0. 7, r. 11 (a) is only as to whether D 
the facts as pleaded disclose a cause of action arid not 
complete cause of action - The limited inquiry is only to see 
whether the petition should be thrown out at the threshold -
Holding an office of. profit under Government of India or E 
Governm·ent of any State is the disqualification - Whether that 
ground is discernible if the election petition is read as a whole, 
is the simple exercise to be undertaken by High Court, when 
called upon to do so under 0. 7, r. 11 (a) - In the instant case, 
the averments made in the election petition clearly disclose 
F 
a cause of action, viz. respondent was holding the position as 
Chairperson of Kera/a State Wakf Board and deriving 
financial benefits from Kera/a Government and, as such, was 
disqualified under Art. 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, 
as holding of an office of profit under State Government of 
Kera/a - That is the triable issue in the election petition. 
G 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: 
'1~ 
s. 83 - Election petition - Material facts - Election of 
1123 
H 
1124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 
A returned candidate challenged on the ground of 
disqualification as he was holding an office of profit - High 
Court rejecting the petition holding that it did not contain a 
pleading that respondent was holding an office of profit under 
State Government - Held: The requirement u/s 83(1)(a) in 
s contradistinction to s.83(1)(b) is that the election petition need 
contain only a concise statement of the material facts and not 
material particulars -
The expression 'material facts' plainly 
means facts pertaining to the subject matter and which are 
relied on by the election petitioner -
If the party does not 
c prove those facts, he fails at the trial - In the instant case, the 
pleadings, (as contained in election petition and Annexure 
P1 (d), which forms an integral part of election petition) if taken 
as a whole, would clearly show that they constitute the material 
facts so as to pose a triable issue as to whether respondent 
. 0 is disqualified to contest election to Kera/a State Legislative 
Assembly while holding an office of profit under State 
government as Chairperson of Kera/a State Wakf Board - In 
an election petition, the requirement uls 83 is to provide a 
precise and concise statement of material facts -
The 
expression 'material facts' plainly means facts pertaining to 
E the subject matter and which are relied on by election 
petitioner - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.191. 
s.83 - Election petition - Annexures thereto- Held: In the 
instant case, all the annexures attached to election petition 
F in the instant case have been signed and verified by election 
petitioner as per the requirement uls 83(2) -
Therefore, 
Annexure-P1 (d) to the election petition forms an integral part 
of election petition - There is a clear and unambiguous plea 
that respondent was holding the post of Chairman, Kera/a 
G State Wakf Board, an office of profit under Government of 
Kera/a and, as such, he was disqualified. 
The respondent was the Chairperson of the Kerala 
State Wakf Board when he contested the election to the 
Kerala Legislative Assembly. The appellant objected to 
H 
ASHRAF KOKKUR v. K.V. ABDUL KHADER 
1125 
his nomination, as per Annexure P1 (d) to the election A 
petition. However, as per order dated 29.03.2011, the 
objection was overruled. The respondent was eventually 
elected. The, appellant filed· an election petition 
challenging the election of the respondent on the ground 
of disqualification as he was holding an office of profit 8 
i.e. Chairperson of the Kerala State Wakf Board. The 
election petition was dismissed in limine, by the High 
Court holding that it did not disclose a complete cause 
of action or a triable issue. The High Court further held 
that the election petition did not

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.